JOHN D. TALLY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JOHN D. TALLY, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
751 So. 2d 152
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2000)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 13 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We find that appellant’s motion for rehearing of the order denying his 3.850 motion for postconviction relief was timely, contrary to the circuit court’s determination. See King v. State, 504 So. 2d 405, 406-07 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We are unable to say that the motion for rehearing was altogether frivolous as the motion may have pointed out things the trial court overlooked, although we make no intimations in this regard. Accordingly, the order denying appellant’s motion for rehearing is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
KAHN, BENTON, JJ., and DOUGLASS B. SHIVERS, Senior Judge, CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Garrett v. State, 876 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…at appellant failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. Appellant responds that preservation of error is not required because any defect in the contempt proceeding is fundamental error. The cases relied on by appellant, Hagerman v. Hagerman, 751 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), and Hunt v. [*26] State, 659 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), involve rule 3.840, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, involving indirect criminal contempt; however, the State presents no cogent reason why direct criminal contempt…
-
Price v. Hannahs, 954 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…tside the presence of the court, any contempt at issue here would be indirect. See id. Indirect criminal contempt requires a judgment of guilt that recites the facts constituting the contempt. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.840(f); see also Hagerman v. Hagerman, 751 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing order that failed to recite factual basis for contempt). Here, the circuit court did not find Dr. Price to be in contempt, and it did not recite a factual basis for doing so. Ergo, we must reverse the $1500 sanction. I…
-
MIX v. State, 827 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…requiring the defendant to appear before [*399] the court to show cause why the defendant should not be held in contempt of court.” Mix correctly argues that the order to show cause issued against him was legally deficient. In Hagerman v. Hagerman, 751 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), this court concluded that an order to show cause was deficient when it simply stated that it appeared the defendant had violated a prior court order and failed to set forth any of the essential facts which purportedly constituted…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- King v. State, 504 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- King v. State, 504 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)